Interesting discussion on FlyTampa forums

[G-YMML1 580]

baldk9 says

Enoyed and bought many of your 2004 products, but by all indications FSX seems to be the flight sim of the future. What can we expect to see in regards to either conversion of previous issued products or all new products for FSX?

george[flytampa] says

I don't understand your first sentence, but FSX isn't the flightsim of the future yet. I wish it was, but 40-50% of sales are still FS9.

If you don't know yet, george is one of FT main developers who responsible for SEA and BOS. I think his words worth something and might be credible enought. I wish PMDG folks would wake up one day from their total failure to understand the reality.http://www.flytampa.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4054

[JET 1 0]

I wish PMDG folks would wake up one day from their total failure to understand the reality.

Here we go again ... :(

[G-YMML1 580]

Here we go again ... :(

It calls public pressure on public forums. Don't like it - don't read it - don't respond to it.

[JET 1 0]

It calls public pressure on public forums. Don't like it - don't read it - don't respond to it.

Do you seriously think that "public pressure", as you call that openly negative remark you made, is going to help you get that developer create the addon YOU want?I don't like it, but I respond to it because I'd like to see that kind of attitude weeded off these forums. Alas, it's probably in vain..

[Wolfko 0]

george[flytampa] saysQUOTE I don't understand your first sentence, but FSX isn't the flightsim of the future yet. I wish it was, but 40-50% of sales are still FS9.---------------------------------- To hear this from one of the leading scenery developers is really interesting and surprising!Wolfgang

[ronzie 21]

Aerosoft for sceneries also questioned FS9 development and negatively responded. In the last few weeks they have released FS9 scenery in a case or two after the FSX version.Maybe the FS9 version does better in Europe, don't know.]Maybe the closure of FS development in the form we know it as has had an impact.Aerosoft's product manager put up a poll or whatever on one of their forums if anyone one consider a new sim dedicated to airliners. That was a few months ago. Now we have a new developer that incorporates some ex-ACES members announcing something in the works.Talk about a fragmented market.

[ZachLW 37]

Do you seriously think that "public pressure", as you call that openly negative remark you made, is going to help you get that developer create the addon YOU want?I don't like it, but I respond to it because I'd like to see that kind of attitude weeded off these forums. Alas, it's probably in vain..

You're wrong. Take Captain Sims' recent release of another patch for the FS9 757. Or, if you follow Rise of Flight, Neoqb's decision after it's release to give American customer's a bonus free aircraft. The latter especially swayed by forum posters.And this "attitude" you speak of is an opinion; Just as worthy of posting as yours.

[cmpbellsjc 2,960]

I wish PMDG folks would wake up one day from their total failure to understand the reality.

The "folks" at PMDG have discussed many times why they decide to not to develope FS9 products any longer. Read this thread from the boss at PMDG so you can see why they made the decision. http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtopic=273567Perhaps the folks at FlyTampa have different sales data for the products that they develope. Could also be because they have a lot more sceneries for FS9 than they do for FSX. To date they have 8 sceneries that are FS9 only, 3 that are for FS9 and FSX, and 1 that is FSX only. If they had all the FS9 stuff available for FSX then their sales data might be different.You have got to put your self in their shoes. If you spent hundreds/thousands of hours developing a product for both platforms and sales for the FSX version out sold the sales by a large margin of the FS9 version, then why would you continue to spend time and development cost and man hours working on dual platforms? Especially if doing the conversion to the other platform ended up resulting in lots of extra hours that didn't pan out to be cost effective.I know that it's disappointing if your the one who ends up being on the wrong side of the developement cycle for a product, but like the some developers mention, they are here to run their business and make the decisions that are best for them, not best for consumer that has the platform they aren't working on. I'm sure that if you were developer or business man who relied on income from your projects you would do what was best for you, not what was best for everyone.If I was using FS9 only and saw that PMDG was doing the new 737NG for FSX only I know I would be disappointed also, but having read their explanation I would just have to understand their reasoning and deal with it.

[coturnix 1]

If one likes what a developer says= he

[Guest deltaflight]

>>You have got to put your self in their shoes. If you spent hundreds/thousands of hours developing a product for both platforms and sales for the FSX version out sold the sales by a large margin of the FS9 version, then why would you continue to spend time and development cost and man hours working on dual platforms? Especially if doing the conversion to the other platform ended up resulting in lots of extra hours that didn't pan out to be cost effective.<<Bolony!First off, I'm an outsider looking in. Dont know what PMMG is or care for that matter. Regarding sales for FSX outweighing FS9, the numbers dont bare this out. And to ignore half of your market share to develop a product for a platform that is dead in the water (FSX) is plain ignorant on so many levels its actually comical.Not meant to be offensive, but do you even know what the term "cost effective" means little buddy?FSX in 5 years will be found to be a huge dissapointment in my opionion. FS9 was a proven product with huge success and "YES" the numbers do bare this out. Now that FSX development is history, would'nt these "pocket sized" companies be better off alligning themselves with a company such as Aerosoft, or the like, who has the ability, talent, and resources, to develop a platform that far exceeds FS9?Hmmm, food for thought.........Mitch

[cmpbellsjc 2,960]

Not meant to be offensive, but do you even know what the term "cost effective" means little buddy?Mitch

Yes I do know what "cost effective" means and I DO think it is offensive to call someone little buddy, especially when I could possibly be twice your age and most definately not your "little buddy".Perhaps you dont know what cost effective means. Here's a link with a defination http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost-effectiveness_analysis Clearly the folks at PMDG are smart people and like Robert Randazzo says, they need to base their decisions off what is best for them and their company, not you and I. Here's a quote Mr. Randazzo "When making decisions we must consider what is best for the long term vitality of PMDG, and this means evaluating information in a cold, detached manner."The problem is, my opinion or your opinion don't matter since we are not the ones running as you called it "pocket sized" companies. Maybe in the future some companies will have a change of heart, but it is what it is, so why bother wasting time on something you can't control.Maybe Aerosofts new simulator will eventually hit the market and be the best FS yet, but it is still more than likely years away. In the meantime each and every developer must do what they think is best for their business. Some companies like FSDreamteam still offer for both platforms because they developed a system for them that makes it easy to do so and even if they dont sell many units for the other platform its at no great loss because they didn't have to invest much into it. For other developers its not so easy due to the way they develope and model their sceneries or a/c.

Regarding sales for FSX outweighing FS9, the numbers dont bare this out. And to ignore half of your market share to develop a product for a platform that is dead in the water (FSX) is plain ignorant on so many levels its actually comical.

The only thing comical is that you have no idea of each and every developers sales numbers to back up their decisions to develope for one platform or the other. How can you possibly know the sales numbers?

[JET 1 0]

You're wrong. Take Captain Sims' recent release of another patch for the FS9 757. Or, if you follow Rise of Flight, Neoqb's decision after it's release to give American customer's a bonus free aircraft. The latter especially swayed by forum posters.And this "attitude" you speak of is an opinion; Just as worthy of posting as yours.

You are missing the point.You'd go standing face to face with the PMDG development team and telling them that "you guys are just totally failing to understand the reality and need to wake up" and expect them to start making you the airplanes you want, let alone freebies? Give me a break.Starting a thread about a matter that has already been beaten to pulp by forum members and has had it's reasons thoroughly explained, and case closed, by the company in question is in itself questionable forum behaviour. Top it up with derogatory remarks and attitude and you've got nothing but a display of unrespectful and childish manners, not an opinion.Now, they've made their decisions based on sales data, which is hard to beat and the best form of public pressure I can think of. If you don't like their policies, buy your aircraft from someone else. And/or express your opinion in a respectful manner.All that being said though, PMDG are obviously smart people and can hopefully overlook the attitudes while (possibly) reading these threads: Nevertheless, an attitude adjustment will get the point through better.

[out 769]

Captains,Please calm down a bit! :( There are points for both sides of this argument.So there is no point in arguing - leads to nowhere.It is just supposed to be a fan forum for MFS9.Don't you think we sometimes go TOO EMOTIONAL about things?

[Coral Sea 0]

Hi :( If our own opinion is allowed to enrich the discussion, I would like to say that the market, for us, is still very pretty divided.We have aleady released 22 FSX sceneries and all but one had their FS9 versions released too.I may say that we can not ignore doing FS9 versions for our new projects yet, neither we will do that for a long time to come. It would be senseless for us, and I`m talking specifically for our own market results. I`m not more or less happy about this nor comparing our policy with any other dev company, please :( Each one has it`s own policy, numbers and strategy and all them are extremely correct and valid. This is just what is better for us and our clients.Actually our sales numbers are almost on a 50/50 relationship between FS9 & FSX.Nice for us that we managed from the begining to produce both versions without too much headache. Worst time was when MS released FSX-SP1 and then SP2 and working things became all messed upsidedown in quick sequence.Since then we are having peace to work (so nice to have peace), and without those announced nightmares that usually scared us in a 2 years cicle basis... :( My best regards,Carlos Pereira.www.tropicalsim.com

[Jeff 0]

Come on people, no need to get upset about this. If you have FS9 and a company is developing for FS9 then that company has a potential sale.If you have FS9 and a company is developing for FSX then that company has no sale. SimpleNo need to get upset